In Naming the Era Committee Members, the Hall Again Can’t Avoid the Specter of Cronyism

It’s not hard to muster some cynicism when it comes to the Era Committee voting. Like the various iterations of the Veterans Committees that proceeded it, the small panels of Hall of Famers, executives, and media members tasked with evaluating Era Committee ballots inevitably include voters with strong connections to the candidates, and with that, some potential for cronyism. This isn’t an abstraction confined to the dusky past, not when it was just three years ago that Harold Baines was elected by a Today’s Game panel that included White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, manager Tony La Russa, and general manager Pat Gillick, all of whom had overseen significant stretches of Baines’ career, creating conflicts of interest that almost certainly aided his election. Thus one couldn’t help raise an eyebrow on Monday after the Hall announced the 16 voters who will serve on the Contemporary Baseball Era Committee. The group will vote on eight candidates on Sunday, December 4, at the Winter Meetings in San Diego.
As ever, it’s not hard to start connecting the dots between the panelists and the eight candidates and think about what that might portend, particularly when the ballot’s most notorious player, Barry Bonds, appears to be the orphan of the bunch. The all-time home run leader and seven-time MVP has the credentials for Cooperstown, obviously, but the allegations concerning his connection to performance-enhancing drugs kept him from reaching 75% of the vote at any time during his 10-year run on the BBWAA ballot. Now he’s within a process that allows the Hall to stack the deck against him.
Each Era Committee is appointed by the Hall of Fame board of directors and chaired by Hall chairman of the board Jane Forbes Clark (as a non-voting member). Usually the configuration is something like eight Hall of Famers, four executives and four media members/historians, but that’s not etched in stone. This one has seven Hall of Famers, six execs, and three media members:
- Hall of Famers: Chipper Jones, Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, Ryne Sandberg, Lee Smith, Frank Thomas, and Alan Trammell
- Executives: Paul Beeston, Theo Epstein, Arte Moreno, Kim Ng, Dave St. Peter, and Ken Williams
- Media members/historians: Steve Hirdt, LaVelle Neal, and Susan Slusser.
Before I get to my nitpicking, it’s worth acknowledging the diversity of the panel. In an industry that’s sorely lacking on that score, both within the front office and the media, the committee nonetheless includes the Mexican-American owner of the Angels (Moreno), the Black executive vice president of the White Sox (Williams), and the Asian-American general manager of the Marlins (Ng). Ng is also the game’s first female GM, while Slusser was the first female president of the BBWAA — making this the first committee with two female voters, as best I can tell — and Neal the first Black president of the BBWAA. On that front, the Hall deserves a nod.
What’s a bit odd is how closely identified the careers of the Hall of Famers are among just four teams, the Braves (Jones and Maddux), Cubs (Maddux, Sandberg, and Smith), White Sox (Thomas), and Tigers (Morris and Trammell). All but Jones and Trammell did actually play for other teams, but Thomas never left the AL, and likewise for Maddux and Sandberg with regards to the NL. It might be nice to have a group that circulated more throughout the game, though that would also increase the odds of players being teammates with the candidates.
As for those candidates, at first glance, this panel appears to be tilted towards Fred McGriff, who to these eyes already appeared to be the most likely honoree. During his 1993-97 run with the Braves, the Crime Dog was not only teammates with both Jones and Maddux, but helped them win a championship in ’95. Even before that, he broke in with the Blue Jays, for whom Beeston was the executive vice president and then president/chief operating officer during his 1986-90 tenure in Toronto. McGriff was also briefly teammates with Williams, who’s surely a better executive than he was a baserunner, at least with the Blue Jays.
Speaking of Beeston, he additionally recruited free agent Roger Clemens, who signed with the Blue Jays in December 1996. Before Clemens won the first of his back-to-back Cy Young Awards in Toronto the following year, however, Beeston had joined the commissioner’s office as the president and chief operating officer of Major League Baseball.
Oddly, the other candidate whose connections jump out the most after McGriff’s is Rafael Palmeiro, whose 2005 positive test for Winstrol trumped his Hall-caliber milestones. As a Cub from 1986-88, he was teammates with Maddux, Sandberg, and Smith. He even gave his son and future indy-ball teammate Patrick Palmeiro the middle name Ryne. Over on the South Side of Chicago, Albert Belle was teammates with Thomas in 1997 and ’98. Williams became the team’s vice president of player development in 1997 but probably wouldn’t have had much to do with the major league side at that point.
Don Mattingly was ever so briefly teammates with Smith, who was traded to the Yankees on August 31, 1993 and finished the season with them. More substantially, Mattingly coached the Dodgers while Ng was an assistant GM there (2005 to early ’11), and then managed the Marlins while Ng was GM in 2021 and ’22.
And of course, Curt Schilling helped the Red Sox win two World Series during his four-year run in Boston (2004-07) while Theo Epstein was general manager.
Neither Bonds nor Dale Murphy have any former teammates or executives on the committee. Murphy played his last game for the Braves on August 2, 1990, about two months after Jones was the first pick of that year’s amateur draft. I’m not sure if he ever served as a spring instructor for the Braves during Jones’ tenure, but the pair have crossed paths in retirement in the service of selling tickets and otherwise representing the team within the community. Murphy did coach first base for Team USA in the 2013 World Baseball Classic under one of his former Braves managers, Joe Torre, while Maddux served as the pitching coach. So there’s that.
All of which leaves Bonds as the least connected of the bunch, without a single teammate or executive from his career. It is worth noting that among the media members, he and Clemens did get the votes of both Neal (who covers the Twins for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune) and Slusser (who after over two decades of covering the A’s for the San Francisco Chronicle switched over to the Giants’ beat in 2021) on the last six BBAA ballots in which they appeared. I’ve noted many times that after excluding both from her 2013-16 ballots, Slusser publicly explained her change of heart in December 2016, after the Today’s Game Era Committee elected former commissioner Bud Selig. “Senseless to keep steroid guys out when the enablers are in Hall of Fame,” she tweeted, adding, “I now will hold my nose and vote for players I believe cheated.” With several other voters of similar mind, Bonds and Clemens both crossed the 50% threshold that year after gaining about nine percentage points; the following November found Hall board member Joe Morgan putting his thumb on the scale on behalf of the institution by issuing an open plea to voters not to elect PED-linked candidates, which stalled both candidates’ momentum.
Unlike Slusser, who publicly explains her ballots before the results are announced, I can’t find any similar explanation from Neal, who according to the data in Ryan Thibodaux’s indispensable Ballot Tracker waits until after the results to reveal his ballot. As for Hirdt, who spent more than 20 years as the executive vice president of the Elias Sports Bureau before moving (along with his brother Peter) to Stats Perform in 2019, he has never published his ballot. He’s served on every Era Committee going back to the 2013 Pre-Integration one, and some VCs before that; he’s additionally been part of the Historical Overview Committee that builds the ballots as well going back to at least 2005 (as far back as I’ve found). Slusser was on this year’s Historical Overview Committee as well; such crossover isn’t common but it’s not unheard of.
On the subject of PEDs, Sandberg was publicly against Sammy Sosa’s election due to the slugger’s connection to PEDs, but it was Thomas who amassed a track record of public declarations on the subject that sets him apart from his peers. He was vocally in favor of testing as far back as 1995. In 2003, he was among the White Sox players who boycotted the survey test on the grounds that doing so would increase the chances of introducing mandatory testing, and four years later, he was the rare player who voluntarily cooperated with the Mitchell Report. Even so, in 2017, Thomas did say that Bonds and Clemens should be in given the elections of Ivan Rodriguez and Jeff Bagwell, neither of whom ever failed a test but both of whom were connected by allegations.
In an insular industry, it would be very difficult to find a full slate of voters who did not have some kind of connection to the candidates beyond playing against them. Nonetheless, the committee system’s history has often resulted in comparatively poor choices for induction, choices so often traceable to links between teammates. As I noted in The Cooperstown Casebook in 2017, five of the selections on Veterans Committees that included Frankie Frisch (1967-72), Bill Terry and Waite Hoyt (both 1971-76) rank dead last among the Hall of Famers at their positions in JAWS, namely starting pitcher Jesse Haines, first baseman High Pockets Kelly, third baseman Fred Lindstrom, left fielder Chick Hafey, and center fielder Lloyd Waner, all of whom were former teammates of one or two of the aforementioned VC members. Baines isn’t dead last among enshrined right fielders — that “honor” belongs to 19th-century player Tommy McCarthy — but he’s 76th in JAWS, the lowest ranking of any position player elected since I introduced my system during the 2004 cycle.
Not that the VC process was pure before Frisch and company rolled into Cooperstown. In his 1994 book The Politics of Glory, Bill James cited the 1945 and ’46 mass election of 21 candidates by the Old Timers Committee (the VC’s forerunner for non-BBWAA candidates) as the point at which “the argument that the Hall of Fame should be only for the greatest of the great was irretrievably lost.” However, it’s been continued waves of results with more than a hint of cronyism that have cost the institution legitimacy in the eyes of at least some observers, and the continued adherence to the process — even as the number of candidates, slots per ballot, and timespan under evaluation changes — does it no favors. I’ve suggested before that simply doubling the size of the committee (to 32 members) and having anybody with firsthand connections (teammate or exec) recuse themselves from voting on that particular candidate would bolster public confidence in these elections. The Hall itself obviously sees it differently. There’s no system or election result that will satisfy everybody, but the institution’s insistence on maintaining this system almost guarantees that the results will be called into question.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
A great irony that the Hall cares so much about the integrity of its honorees that it’s willing to sacrifice its own to keep them out.
I don’t think that’s how integrity works…
unfortunately, i think that the vast majority of baseball fans don’t know about these committees or care – they read “hall of fame” and assume that if someone gets elected they are worthy, and if they do not then they weren’t up to snuff or that they were clearly a cheater. obviously, nerds like us tend to have a far more nuanced opinion on these matters regardless of who we feel should be included or excluded from the HOF (and why).
as always, i appreciate the connection of these dots, and i think it certainly points to mcgriff getting in, which i personally don’t have a problem with (he is a borderline case for me, so i don’t really care either way).
on an unrelated note, i see that of the 3 recorded ballots on this year’s ballot tracker, wager, rolen, and helton are at 100%!
I’m not sure I agree. Seems like the baseball HOF inspires a LOT more passion amongst its fans than the other sports. I’ve spent hundreds and hundreds of hours of my life debating the baseball HOF with friends and other fans. But even though I’m also an NFL and NBA fan, I don’t think I’ve ever spent a single minute of my life debating those HOFs with friends or other fans.
NBA fans don’t debate HOF because most stars that fans care about get in.
NBA equivalent of players like Cole Hamels, David Wright, Dustin Pedroia, Felix Hernandez, etc. would easily be HoFers.
There are a lot of factors that make the basketball and football halls of fame basically non-factors in those sports from a fan perspective. They both have more members than the baseball hall despite the relative youth of the sports. They also have significantly less visible voting processes with basically complete anonymity in basketball’s case and a strange finalist process for football that ensures that between 4-8 individuals are inducted every year.
The most important factor in my opinion is the difference in the importance of statistics in the sports. Baseball has always been about comparing statistics and fans are used to the back of the baseball card stats. The evolution of football and the variety of positions makes statistical comparison basically impossible. It is significantly more difficult to compare Roger Staubach and Matthew Stafford than it would be to debate Dale Murphy vs Andrew McCutchen.
It’s not terribly difficult to compare Staubach and Stafford.
Try comparing Anthony Munoz and Roger Staubach.
“NBA equivalent of players like Cole Hamels, David Wright, Dustin Pedroia, Felix Hernandez, etc. would easily be HoFers.”
Ehhh, I dunno about that. There is definitely less focus and debate on the NBA HOF, but you don’t exactly see them electing Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, Mark Price, Kevin Willis, Mark Aguirre, or Kiki Vandeweghe.
To which you could say, yes BUT they did elect Frank Ramsey, Bill Bradley, Jamaal Wilkes, Al Cervi, and Mo Cheeks!
Fair enough, but then again the MLB HOF also elected Ray Schalk, Jesse Haines, Tommy McCarthy, and Harold Baines…
At their current pace of 15+ inductees a year, it’s just a matter of time until Price, Chambers, and Aguirre get inducted.
I can’t imagine the baseball reaction to Toni Kukoc and Vlade Divac being inducted with 1 all-star appearance between them. I realize that international accomplishments are considered, but they weren’t even particularly good in their Olympic play.
Harold Baines was considered an egregiously terrible inductee that caused many to question the validity of the entire hall (a gross overreaction in my opinion, but look at the comments of that post). The Harold Baines of basketball could easily be Joe Johnson and he is just accepted as someone who will eventually make the hall, but probably not on the first ballot. No one will be reaching for the pitchforks when Johnson (or Chambers if you think he is a better comp) is elected since they won’t be anywhere near the least accomplished hall of famers.
“15+ inductees a year” is overstating your case quite a bit. But I do agree that there are some pretty egregious selections in recent years (Kukoc, Sikma, Divac, Westphal, Charlie Scott, Mo Cheeks, etc).
The NBA is adding some female players and also some players who are getting in for their international success/influence as much as what they accomplished in the NBA – Sabonis, Ming, Kukoc, Petrovic, Divac, etc. Both of these factors are swelling the ranks of their inductees and there is no real analogue for either in the MLB.
But even stripping away both of those factors, it does seem that the NBA is making a more purposeful push for a “big tent” HOF whereas the MLB HOF voters are stridently looking for reasons to keep people out rather than letting people in.
But that seems a very recent phenomenon – the MLB was decidedly a “big tent” hall with some truly awful selections in certain years (1945-46, 1953-55), much as some would (rightly) say the NBA has been in recent years.
It’s gonna be wild if Rafael Palmeiro gets in on cronyism and Bonds and Clemens are excluded. I mean, Bonds and Clemens are despicable human beings in general so there could theoretically be another explanation other than PEDs…but I don’t think it would be likely.
Despicable human beings? Think about what you’re saying before typing it. Really makes you look bad.
If being in a relationship with a 16 year old at 29 or physically and verbally abusing multiple partners isn’t despicable, how low are your standards?
Charitably, my guess is that harperhill assumed the charge was based on using PED, as that was what was being discussed. But yeah, Clemens and Bonds have huge character issues beyond cheating in baseball.
For as long as I can remember there have been widespread rumors that Palmeiro and Cindy Sandberg had a fling, and that’s at least part of why the Cubs sent him to Texas. (I’ve never quite understood how that rumor meshes with Palmeiro naming his kid after Ryne, unless Palmeiro really is just that much of an all-around HOF-class Jerk) But between the persistence of that story and Sandberg’s stance on PEDs, I’m guessing it’ll be a “no” from Ryno.
perhaps Palmeiro and Ryno were big swingers in more ways than one
Like Fritz Peterson and Mike Kekich?
I was thinking more like Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn. “WHO’S THE BIG WINNER HERE TONIGHT? MIKEY! MIKEY’S THE BIG WINNER!”
I’ve always heard that it was Davey Martinez, not Palmeiro.
Google Machine teaches me that… huh, there also has been a lot of gossip about Martinez and C. Sandberg, too, and that’s why Martinez also got traded away that year.
I think I need a Netflix special about the 88 Cubs
How could she resist the ‘stache?
The Ken Williams link goes to the Ken Williams who was born in 1890 and played from 1915-1929. I’m guessing he will not be voting (may he rest in peace).
He may not vote, but Jerry Reinsdorf might offer him a job.
Lol.
Cronyism is unavoidable in HOF voting as in life. That doesn’t make it right, but we all should be smart enough to recognize it’s there. An honest assessment at the end of most of our lives will likely lead us to come to the conclusion that at least in some small way, we have all benefited from cronyism. Friends help friends. Favoritism exists. It’s a human reaction.
MLB, despite its denials, really does control the HOF. They do it mostly in the shadows, but at the same time, we can often see when they’re telegraphing an outcome. I’ve been saying since it was announced that this HOF (at MLB’s direction) ballot was purposely created as a statement ballot, and a statement ballot when all the voting is done will require a statement result. Bet on at least one of McGriff, Mattingly and Murphy getting elected. Bet on none of Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Palmeiro and Belle being elected.
I’ve prepared myself for at least one of McGriff, Mattingly and Murphy being elected, and I think there’s a chance that all three are elected. Unlikely, but higher than many believe. Supposedly the HOF character clauses were not created to keep players out, but to help get certain players in. We may see that happen here. MLB without saying a word can say a lot this weekend. They can make a statement.
BTW Not that it matters, but I’ll be fine with any or all three being elected, just as I was fine with Tony Oliva last year. Jay’s work is tremendous, and does a great job of highlighting the lost cases of many players, and making us realize there’s a HOFer out there that we’re missing. At the same time, I’m fine with stepping outside those guidelines and assessing specific cases. McGriff, Mattingly and Murphy, if any or all are elected, will elevate the stature of the Hall, an institution that was created to market the game. I’d be fine taking my son or daughter, or grandson or granddaughter, to a Hall and stopping at the plaques and saying, “let me tell you about these players.”
McGriff would be fine. Murphy would be a so-so selection, but, wouldn’t bother me. Mattingly would be a joke and as bad as Baines.
There are 15-20 1B at minimum that get no HOF consideration that deserve to be in over Mattingly.
A healthy Mattingly was a much better player than Baines ever was. He was a perennial MVP candidate 1984-87.
He was, but, his entire case is those 4 years, basically. They’re 2 different arguments- Baines never hit those heights, was above average guy that played forever, Mattingly has those 4 years, then 8-9 years of so-so play.
Neither one should be in.
& as noted, if you put in Mattingly, where is Will Clark? McGwire? Norm Cash? Boog Powell? Steve Garvey? Cecil Cooper? Giambi? Mark Teixeira? Keith Hernandez? Jack Clark? and on & on..
“Neither one should be in.”
Yes, agreed. The Hall suffers from whataboutism due to a wide assortment of questionable elections, and Baines definitely counts as one of them. Hopefully there isn’t further dilution where Baines is used as the measuring stick going forward.
Ryan Howard!
Exactly..Carlos Delgado! Andres Galarraga! Tino Martinez! Adrian Gonzalez! Lee May!
That’s 16 guys between your post,my earlier one & this one,..just loosely thinking of names.
Each player should have his own case debated on its own merits. One player with similar or better WAR doesn’t mean their cases are equivalent or better. Mattingly has aspects those other players don’t have, and that brings in the subjective nature of what does a voter view as a HOFer. I’ve increased peak value in my personal assessment. For example, Johan Santana has a career fWAR of 45.6. Andy Pettitte has a career fWAR of 68.2. Mark Buehrle is 52.3. Tim Hudson is at 49. All three have higher WARs than Santana, one significantly higher, but I view Santana as a HOFer, but I don’t view the others as HOFers.
As for 1B’man, Dick Allen should be in front of Mattingly and everyone else mentioned.
There’s a different reason McGwire hasn’t gotten in…
You’re right..replace him with Olerud, who I somehow totally forgot.
Mattingly edges Baines in fWAR despite playing over 1000 fewer games, haha.
Incidentally, I’d be fine with Will Clark, Keith Hernandez, and Olerud in the Hall, all of whom I’d rate on the same level as a McGriff or a Helton.
No real disagreement, but I will say that “Mattingly would be a joke as bad as Baines” is a step too far. I won’t argue with anyone at all who does not believe Mattingly, as well as Murphy and McGriff, or some portion of the three, don’t belong in the Hall as I was firmly in that camp for years. I’ve moderated my views in recent seasons based on what I view as a HOFer, and peak has become more important.
If Murphy is a so-so candidate, I’d add that Mattingly being four WAR behind probably shouldn’t move him into the joke category. Mattingly was a brilliant player, both at the bat and in the field. I don’t consider anything about him a joke. Mattingly was probably the second-greatest defensive 1B’man I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot, yet the defensive ratings have him as a net negative! No one thinks he was a negative defender. As most fans know, WAR does a poor job at 1B mostly because the defensive stats for 1B still are questionable, and they certainly are retrospectively.
My consideration on Murphy, Mattingly and McGriff (clearly there’s a bias against M players!) is that their cases fall outside the pure WAR-driven arguments. There should be a place for that. Their cases are more nuanced, each in a different way, and I’m willing to consider that nuance. It was the same with Tony Oliva last year. More than fine his election because he also was more than his final WAR. The Hall will be elevated with their enshrinement. I can’t say that about Baines.
Don’t worry though. I believe the only one of this group who will be elected on Sunday is McGriff. The construction of the ballot and the committee selected are designed to get him enshrined. (BTW While I find Brian Kenny’s analysis to be too simplistic, designed for the TV audience, he does often make good points. His analysis of Mattingly’s candidacy the other day was quite strong. It’s worth a watch. At minimum, you’ll probably see why he’s more than Harold Baines.)
Yeah, I was probably a little harsh there. He’s certainly better than Baines.It was more that I view him as undeserving & if you’re putting in 1B, the line starts with Allen/Hernandez/Helton/Olerud/McGriff.I’d put in Garvey over him, too. To me they’re similar, but, Garvey has all kinds of post season heroices.
I just have a hunch he’s considered A. because he played for The Yankees & B. he’s a white, gritty guy who is still in the game.
I do agree about using WAR..or not using it as a definite in or out. Esp with older candidates where we’re cobbling together defensive #’s without good data.
I actually think Murphy is way better then his WAR, too & I’ve defended the Puckett election on here numerous times, too.If you view the HOF as “telling the story of baseball”, you can’t tell it without Puckett.To me, Murphy gets that same deal (& so does Garvey), I don’t think Mattingly does.
I mean at this point, almost anything would elevate the stature of the Hall.
“Hold my beer!”
Absolutely. It’s a political process and it does look like an orchestrated stitch up to push McGriff in while keeping Bonds/Clemens out.
Schilling is the wild card – I suspect he goes in too
I can’t believe Lloyd Waner was ever even seriously considered for the Hall of Fame let alone actually managed to get elected.
I genuinely wonder if some of the VC members thought that they were voting for Paul Waner or had gotten the two mixed up. I could easily see a lot of the former players remembering how great Waner the outfielder for Pittsburgh was and not realizing that the guy they were thinking of was already in the hall.
Not to defend the election at all… but more than likely the committee that voted for him didn’t have access to anything more than career batting average, hits totals, RBI – the bare minimum stats. Guys with .316 batting averages in 8000 PAs are going to be Hall of Famers more often than not, so I’m willing to give them some benefit of the doubt on that one.
I’ll add in that the retro-defensive metrics aren’t kind to him as a CFer, but he was a CFer and retro defensive stats are mostly trash. Maybe that’s unkind, but I simply have no faith in them. The people who saw him no doubt had a very different opinion of him as a player and rated him on expectations and performance valued during that period. And, of course, as you noted, the traditional stats of BA, etc. were valued, and they had no access to stats such as WAR and wRC+.
Even still, the guy only had 27 HRs, 598 RBIs, 1201 R, 3057 TBs, 420 BBs, and 67 SBs, and it’s not like he played during the Dead Ball Era.
That’s basically Ozzie Smith without his speed or all-time incredible defense while trading some walks for some BA points. His retro-defensive numbers may be trash, but I’m pretty sure nobody considers him one of the best defensive CFs in MLB history.
Career .316 means a lot though. You have to consider how evaluation worked at the time… Obviously he didn’t slug but he was a very successful hitter by the standards
James’ “Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?” is also a very good dive into the politics that have ruled the process and the misguided theories that people have utilized in advocating for candidates. It came out in ’95, I think. Well recommended.
I really liked that book. It’s a long read but it certainly gives the impression that cronyism has been going on nearly since the beginning for some of those who were elected long ago.
I really enjoyed that book and wish Bill would update to reflect the last 25 years’ worth of decisions.
I’d love a new Baseball Historical Abstract too. A tremendous amount of work, and James probably doesn’t believe it’s worth his time after all he’s accomplished, and with hardcover books not selling like they used to. Pretty sure it would be a bestseller though. JoePos showed there is still an audience for baseball books on best-seller lists.
I find it hard to get worked up about “conflicts of interest” in admission to a club that’s about honoring baseball players. This isn’t some objective thing where you can go to court to plead your case. If the Hall wants to honor certain players and leave others out then that’s their prerogative. And it’s the prerogative of everyone else to decide whether they care.
Of course it is their prerogative. But when said club chooses when to enforce their own “rules”, it’s hard to take them seriously.
Moreno seems the least qualified to judge this. He was just a fan in the 80s. He’ll probably just vote for any right wing political player. Like Schilling. He added Dean Chance to the Angels HOF having just played 3 yrs yet ignored Tanana or Langston. All bc he has a Cy Young so he favors awards.
There isn’t an owner out there objective and knowledgable enough about the game that their opinions should be given the same weight as some of the other names on that panel.
Does Moreno seriously get to personally (if even partly) decide on team HOF selections? That is pretty weird.
Kenny Lofton deserved hall consideration from the Era Committee way more so than Albert Belle. Unfortunately however, I don’t think the Era Committee would have a high enough degree of sophistication to elect a player like Lofton whose value is derived from defense, base running, and on-base abilities.
“that have cost the institution legitimacy in the eyes of at least some observers…”
Wait – there are people that still think the HoF has legitimacy?
The players do. They mostly think it’s the highest honor in the game
All this argues that we should be reducing the induction powers of the veterans committees. After all, the writers get just about all the obvious (non-PED division) candidates, leaving the veterans committees with some okay, some bad, but mostly meh guys that only people who like a Big HOF want in there.
But, since the writers and commentators on this site tend to be Big HOF guys, I don’t expect this opinion to be popular…
I think they’ve done more good than bad, as they’ve also corrected oversights like Lee Smith and Ted Simmons along with several others over the years.
They could do with a larger size committee, though.
The very nature of the committee means there will be some internal biases shown. If the first concern here is that membership is stacked against Bonds, that might be true, but we should recall that Bonds, through his own actions, put himself in this position. I do think Bonds (and Clemens) will eventually get in, and I’m not going to get particularly upset about it when they do. Taking one and not the other would bother me, because that would demonstrate that it was more than just about PEDS.
But the bigger problem is more than how PEDS players are treated, it’s the Harold Baines one. If we are anti-PEDS we can either say no or apply a discount to the player’s stats (many fans, and BB writers/voters do that anyway, whether they acknowledge it or not). But Baines is really not good enough–and his HOF votes (never about 6.1%) are a reflection of that reality.
The Committee shouldn’t be taking B+ career players, no matter how much they were loved–it really does diminish the value of the induction.
I can see Bonds & Clemens each getting seven votes, which would be consistent with their numbers from the BBWAA. I think that McGriff and Schilling split on that third slot. I’ll say Schilling gets four and McGriff gets three. Maybe Palmeiro picks off one vote here.
I think of the remaining nine voters, six will at least have both Schilling and McGriff (with players like Mattingly and Murphy picking up a few). One or two of the remaining will have Schilling but not McGriff, and vice versa, and Mattingly & Murphy will get a few more courtesy votes.
All in all, I think the ceiling for McGriff and Schilling is 13 votes and the floor is nine or ten. I’m doubtful they’ll both get at least 12. I’m bracing for neither of them to hit that threshold.
I wonder if some advocates for Bonds/Clemens might read the room, realize that not enough of them are ready to make that leap, and use their votes elsewhere.
But really, trying to game out and predict how the vote might turn out might be fun but realistically you nor I have any clue of how things could go down.
The only thing we really know is that the limitation on how many candidates each member can vote for will likely depress the number of honorees, perhaps to zero.
Frank Thomas who now does add for testosterone supplements
Frank Thomas also had a minor role in one of the best baseball movies ever made: Mr. Baseball.
I’m not sure that this matters, but if we’re just saying random things about Frank Thomas then I think mine is a little more fun.
“And guys…she’ll like it too.” (Smiles, nods, plays grab-ass with Doug Flutie)